The unforgiveable sin ?

[epostle1]

the part where the demons don't accept Jesus as savior. lol

That's evading the point.
John 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.

Mere belief (or faith alone) is not enough.
Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.
The reformers were wrong.

FAITH ALONE BY J. AKIN

 

[mjrhealth]

The reformers were wrong.

Thtas teh problem, everyone is wrong, Jesus is right, but no one cares, to busy teaching their religious doctrines

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

He is patient but our time has run out.

 

[BreadOfLife]

the part where the demons don't accept Jesus as savior. lol

But, that's not what YOU said.
YOU said that simply "believing" was "overcoming" - and now you're back-peddling.

Here's a little advice: Instead of sitting there and "LOL"-ing - maybe you should pay closer attention to what the Scriptures teach . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your list of Scripture is Scripture. Not oral tradition. Scripture is inspired by God. You can write hundreds more articles...just means that is hundreds of more heresies being propagated.

Placing tradition above Scripture contradicts Scripture. I showed you in (Matt. 15:3) "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" As I said, Scripture trumps tradition.

Do you believe (Matt. 15:3)?

Stranger

And WHO is placing Sacred Tradition "above" the Scriptures??
Certainly NOT the Church.

The Pharisees whom Jesus was speaking to DID place their minor traditions above Scripture.
These are not the types of Sacred Traditions that Paul speaks of and puts ON PAR with Scripture in 2 Thess. 2:15.

Read closely:

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT - OR BY a letter from us."

Here's a little advice:
Instead of just quoting Scripture - LEARN what it means . . .

 

[Heb 13:8]

That's evading the point.
John 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.

Mere belief (or faith alone) is not enough.
Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.
The reformers were wrong.

FAITH ALONE BY J. AKIN

Right, the love of the finished work of the cross. To be saved, you must believe Jesus is your savior. Demons do not believe this. - What will you choose By Heb 13:8

He is patient but our time has run out.

4 months left.

YOU said that simply "believing" was "overcoming" - and now you're back-peddling.

Believing is overcoming. What are we believing in BOL? 4 months left, time is short.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Believing is overcoming. What are we believing in BOL? 4 months left, time is short.

Wrong.

If simply believing in Christ is overcoming - then the Demons have overcome.
Biblical "overcoming" is enduring to the end in faith and obedience.

There is NO substitute.

 

[Stranger]

And WHO is placing Sacred Tradition "above" the Scriptures??
Certainly NOT the Church.

The Pharisees whom Jesus was speaking to DID place their minor traditions above Scripture.
These are not the types of Sacred Traditions that Paul speaks of and puts ON PAR with Scripture in 2 Thess. 2:15.

Read closely:

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT - OR BY a letter from us."

Here's a little advice:
Instead of just quoting Scripture - LEARN what it means . . .

Sure, you, and the Roman church are placing tradition above the Scripture. The Roman church likes to say it isn't doing something, such as the worship of Mary or placing tradition above Scripture, but in reality they do. The only reason they have to say they don't, is because it is evident that they do.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, URBI et ORBI Communications, #80-86, p. 26-27) "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other...to form one thing...Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."..."And Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord....It transmits it to the successors of the apostles....As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."....In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's magisterium....The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone.....This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted tot he bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, URBI et ORBI Communications, #95, p.29) "It is clear therefore that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others...."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, URBI et ORBI Communications, #111-113, p.32-33) "But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. 'Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.' The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it....2. Read the Scripture within 'the living Tradition of the whole Church.'....Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture...."

So, Scripture and Tradition are to be seen as equal. But such interpretation are only allowed by the bishops of Rome and the pope. But though Scripture and Tradition are seen as equal, it remains that Traditions can be retained, modified, or abandoned by the Magisterium of the Roman church. Which means Scripture must then be interpreted in light of the Tradition. Because they are to be so called....equal.

Yes, the Roman church is putting tradition above the Scriptures.

Now, answer my question. Do you believe (Matt. 15:3) Simple yes or no would work.

Stranger

 

[Heb 13:8]

Wrong.

If simply believing in Christ is overcoming - then the Demons have overcome.
Biblical "overcoming" is enduring to the end in faith and obedience.

There is NO substitute.

The demons do not overcome because they do not believe that Jesus is their savior!!! Wake up!!! <_<

 

[epostle1]

The demons do not overcome because they do not believe that Jesus is their savior!!! Wake up!!! <_<

This is a straw man fallacy. It is IMPOSSIBLE for demons to believe Jesus is their savior, but they believe He exists. That's the point of John 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.
Belief is doing well, but it is not enough. We have instant potatoes, instant coffee, but instant justification is not in the Bible, it's a life long process. That's why Paul says so much about enduring to the end.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sure, you, and the Roman church are placing tradition above the Scripture. The Roman church likes to say it isn't doing something, such as the worship of Mary or placing tradition above Scripture, but in reality they do. The only reason they have to say they don't, is because it is evident that they do.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, URBI et ORBI Communications, #80-86, p. 26-27) "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other...to form one thing...Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."..."And Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord....It transmits it to the successors of the apostles....As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."....In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's magisterium....The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone.....This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted tot he bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, URBI et ORBI Communications, #95, p.29) "It is clear therefore that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others...."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, URBI et ORBI Communications, #111-113, p.32-33) "But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. 'Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.' The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it....2. Read the Scripture within 'the living Tradition of the whole Church.'....Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture...."

So, Scripture and Tradition are to be seen as equal. But such interpretation are only allowed by the bishops of Rome and the pope. But though Scripture and Tradition are seen as equal, it remains that Traditions can be retained, modified, or abandoned by the Magisterium of the Roman church. Which means Scripture must then be interpreted in light of the Tradition. Because they are to be so called....equal.

Yes, the Roman church is putting tradition above the Scriptures.

Now, answer my question. Do you believe (Matt. 15:3) Simple yes or no would work.

Stranger

Why is it that you never do your homework, Stanger??
Don't you ever tire of being humiliated on this forum??

First of all - "tradition" and Sacred Tradition are NOT the same thing. There are many minor traditions that Catholics are not bound by. Sacred Traditions, however, is based on the Word of God and therefore is equal to Scripture. HOW do we know this?? Because the BIBLE says so - as I've already educated you:


2 Thess. 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT - OR BY a letter from us."

This is the Holy Word of almighty God - and nothing less.
Your rejection of this Biblical illustrate one of two things:

1. You are so incredibly ignorant about Scripture that you don't understand this passage.
2. You are so filled with spiritual pride that you openly reject this truth because of your insane hatred of the Catholic Church.

Take your pick . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The demons do not overcome because they do not believe that Jesus is their savior!!! Wake up!!!

Yes they DO. They know exactly who He is.
Why do you think that James says that they believe and "Tremble".
Why do you think that they were frightened of Jesus??

Matt. 8:29
"What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"

They refused to cooperate with God and THAT'S why they wound up where they did.
The "Overcoming" spoken of in Rev. 3:5 is about enduring in faith and obedience.

Just admit when you're wrong and move on . . .

 

[Heb 13:8]

This is a straw man fallacy. It is IMPOSSIBLE for demons to believe Jesus is their savior, but they believe He exists. That's the point of John 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.
Belief is doing well, but it is not enough. We have instant potatoes, instant coffee, but instant justification is not in the Bible, it's a life long process. That's why Paul says so much about enduring to the end.

kepha, demons are not humans. humans have the ability to believe in a savior, demons do not.

 

[Heb 13:8]

Yes they DO. They know exactly who He is.
Why do you think that James says that they believe and "Tremble".
Why do you think that they were frightened of Jesus??

Demons believe Jesus is their savior, I don't think so. What is the "light of the gospel", what's that mean?

2 Cor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

 

[epostle1]

kepha, demons are not humans. humans have the ability to believe in a savior, demons do not.

You are the second person that has difficulty with "Even the demons believe—and shudder." John 2:19 which is the point of this discussion.
You are making a rabbit trail because your system cannot come to terms with the biblical truth that demons believe. It throws the standard Protestant definition of "believe" into a tailspin.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Demons believe Jesus is their savior, I don't think so. What is the "light of the gospel", what's that mean?

2 Cor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

As I already schooled you - the demons know EXACTLY who Jesus is.
They reject Him anyway - in the same way YOU do.

 

[epostle1]

what is it - is it one off or widespread - why is it unforgiveable etc ? - any comments - twinc

Interaction with the book that I believe is the best Protestant critique of Catholicism in our times:
Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, by Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. Mackenzie (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995).]

Matthew 12:31-32

The Catholic argues that this passage makes reference to forgiveness after death: something that is anathema to Protestantism. This particular super-serious sin (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) is not forgiven, yet it is clear that Jesus is presupposing that there are other sins that are forgiven after death: which is one of the tenets of purgatory: forgiveness for and temporal punishment of sins after death for the person who is already saved and will inevitably make it to heaven in due course. The passage was interpreted in this fashion by several great historical exegetes:
St. Augustine (354-430)
Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604)
St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)
The Venerable Bede (c. 672-735)

Geisler, surprisingly for one schooled in philosophy (his doctorate), doesn’t seem to grasp the logical argument here, since he responds to a straw man of his own making and not the argument above. He asks (p. 335):
How can the denial that this sin will . . . ever be forgiven, even after death, be the basis for speculating that sins will be forgiven in the next life?

I reply that mentioning “the age to come” obviously assumes the premise that such things can happen in the afterlife; after death. Otherwise, why mention it? We don’t include in our observations what we regard as a falsehood or impossible. No one would say, for example, “a circle is round and also is square.” The first thing is obviously true, and the second is categorically impossible.
If Jesus thought (like Protestants) that there is no forgiveness (or purgatory) after death (as a similar categorical impossibility), then He would have never mentioned even its theoretical potentiality. He simply wouldn’t bring it up at all. He doesn’t teach falsehood, being God and omniscient. The final clause wouldn’t be in the text. But there it is!
The “polemical structure” of the Catholic argument in this instance is similar to the biblical argument for praying to someone other than God, found in Luke 16 (remarkably unnoticed by Protestants who, again, deny a thing that Jesus plainly asserts). I explored that in another article of mine:

Luke 16:24
Abraham says no (Luke 16:25-26), just as God will say no to a prayer not according to His will. He asks him again, begging (Luke 16:27-28).

Abraham refuses again, saying (16:29): “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’” He asks a third time (16:30), and Abraham refuses again, reiterating the reason why (16:31).
. . . If we were not supposed to ask saints to pray for us, I think this story would be almost the very last way to make that supposed point.
Abraham would simply have said, “you shouldn’t be asking me for anything; ask God!” In the same way, analogously, angels refuse worship when it is offered, because only God can be worshiped [I cited Rev 19:9-10; 22:89]. St. Peter did the same thing [Acts 10:25-26]. So did St. Paul and Barnabas [Acts 14:11-15].
If the true theology is that Abraham cannot be asked an intercessory request, then Abraham would have noted this and refused to even hear it. But instead he heard the request [three times!] and said no.
Jesus couldn’t possibly have taught a false principle.

Likewise (following the analogy above to the argument about prayer), if there is no such thing as forgiveness “in the age to come” Jesus would not have alluded to it. The fact that one sin can’t be forgiven even in the next life does not prove that none can be forgiven, just as Abraham’s (not God’s!) refusal to grant one prayer does not prove that no one can pray to anyone other than God. It proves, rather, that not all prayers (including prayers offered to saints or angels) are answered as the one praying would like them to be answered. God or the saint or angel may refuse the petition.
Ironically, Geisler (in the midst of a different argument against purgatory), refers to the rich man praying to Abraham (he uses the description, “cried out”). Moreover, he agrees with my contention that this passage is not a parable...

Geisler then argues (p. 335):
[T]he passage is not even speaking about punishment, which Catholics argue will occur in purgatory. So how could this text be used to support the concept of purgatorial punishment?

But this is not the Catholic argument in the first place; it is, rather, that forgiveness of sins after death is one essential aspect of purgatory, which this passage supports. It’s a partial proof of purgatory, not a full one (every particular aspect of purgatory). But it is taking the reader to “waters” that are strange for Protestants: very murky and over their heads.

He continues (p. 335) to miss the main point:
Purgatory involves only venial sins, but this sin . . . is mortal, being eternal and unforgivable . . . even if this passage did imply punishment, it is not for those who will eventually be saved . . . but for those who never will be saved . . . It only indicates the lack of real biblical support for the doctrine.

Remarkably enough (for such a generally good debater), he never engages the argument (explained above) as actually used by Catholics. Geisler totally fails to refute the Catholic argument, derived from one as great as St. Augustine (much beloved by Protestants), since all he did was flail away after straw men and cardboard caricatures the whole time.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/02/armstrong-vs-geisler-1-purgatory-mt-1232.html

 

[Heb 13:8]

You are the second person that has difficulty with "Even the demons believe—and shudder." John 2:19 which is the point of this discussion.
You are making a rabbit trail because your system cannot come to terms with the biblical truth that demons believe. It throws the standard Protestant definition of "believe" into a tailspin.

Not sure how else to explain it to you.
Demons believe Jesus is their savior kepha?
Believers don't shudder, lol..
they actually look forward to His coming 2 Tim 4:8.
There is nothing to fear if your in Christ.

As I already schooled you - the demons know EXACTLY who Jesus is.
They reject Him anyway - in the same way YOU do.

I reject Him? How so? You just agreed with me that demons know Jesus but reject Him. and God knows who belongs to Him, don't worry.

 

[Stranger]

Why is it that you never do your homework, Stanger??
Don't you ever tire of being humiliated on this forum??

First of all - "tradition" and Sacred Tradition are NOT the same thing. There are many minor traditions that Catholics are not bound by. Sacred Traditions, however, is based on the Word of God and therefore is equal to Scripture. HOW do we know this?? Because the BIBLE says so - as I've already educated you:


2 Thess. 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT - OR BY a letter from us."

This is the Holy Word of almighty God - and nothing less.
Your rejection of this Biblical illustrate one of two things:

1. You are so incredibly ignorant about Scripture that you don't understand this passage.
2. You are so filled with spiritual pride that you openly reject this truth because of your insane hatred of the Catholic Church.

Take your pick . . .

I have showed you in your own Catechism's what the Roman church believes. Yet you show me nothing except your spouting off. So, show me what you are saying, either through your catetchism's or the Scripture.

As I have said before, there is nothing wrong with traditions as long as they are supported by the Scriptures. But when tradition trumps Scripture, then it is heresy.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

Not sure how else to explain it to you.
Demons believe Jesus is their savior kepha?

Quote me instead of making things up.
Believers don't shudder, lol..

I don't create non-sequitur fallacies like this one.

google definition: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

 

[Heb 13:8]

Quote me instead of making things up.

I didn't quote you. I asked you a question: Demons believe Jesus is their savior? Do demons have salvation?


Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.


Many religious people know the Gospel well, but it's their heart that is far from God. Rom 1:18-32 is about nonbelievers kepha..

James 2:19 Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible - the devils also believe; the Arabic version reads, "the devils likewise so believe"; they believe the same truth; they know and believe there is but one God, and not many; and they know that the God of Israel is he; and that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are the one God; they know and believe him to be the most high God, whose servants the ministers of the Gospel are; and they know and believe that Jesus is the Holy One of God, the Son of God, and the Messiah, Acts 16:17.

Rom 1:28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

Rom 1:32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

I don't create non-sequitur fallacies like this one.

google definition: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

The rapture of the church which will be very soon is actually called the blessed hope. Why is the rapture considered a blessing if we're in fear of it. Contradiction, no?